The Green Way: No drought of water-shortage emails from readers

Letters from some of my college buddies spilled from a box in the garage. The find was like those archaeologists who uncover cave paintings. Although the letters went back only 20 years, who writes and sends actual letters anymore?

Today, we press a button on a computer and “send” an email.

I got a flurry of electronic mail in my inbox and 140-character Twitter messages from people who wanted to comment on my stories on the severe drought in California and in particular, the one I wrote about a couple from Glendora who received a warning letter from the city for having a brown lawn.

Richard Wagoner and Jim Mihalka brought up the argument that says: Why should current homeowners have to conserve water and even be hit by fines, while cities approve new housing developments?

“We are supposed to save water ... so that the LA City Council can approve building projects including zone changes unwanted by the community,” Wagoner wrote. The rest of the email was about a proposed condominium project in San Pedro.

He suggests a $500 fine for every home added during the drought.

Mihalka wrote about a smaller townhome project in West Covina. He objected to West Covina, Covina, Glendora and Azusa approving “more than 3,000 new homes ... in the past three years” while the area faces a water shortage.

“They send me notices stating I must conserve water because there is a shortage, however the shortage must not be too bad because they continue to add homes,” wrote Mihalka, who once ran for supervisor of Los Angeles County.

These are smart readers who’ve hit on what may be the next topic in the drought: Should cities hold up development until a normal water supply is restored?

So far, holding off on new development is not part of the governor’s plan, nor is it part of the State Water Resources Control Board’s new regulations set to take effect Friday.

Advertisement

But having said that, there is one city nearby that has done what may make these two emailers jump for joy: Sierra Madre.

The City Council unanimously decided on July 8 to enact a mandatory 30 percent water conservation requirement for residents, and to enact building and water hookup moratoriums. The moratoriums will be reviewed on Aug. 12.

Sometimes people use the drought as a cudgel against development they don’t want. I think we need a solution, not a moratorium.

But that’s just me. I’m more solution-oriented than politically driven.

Which brings me to an email from Daniele Compatangelo, an Italian Swiss journalist and public relations guy who is making headway selling a client’s faucet aerator called the Swiss Eco Tap. The device will save 90 percent of the water from the tap. It was developed by Rolf Senti, who felt blessed by all the waterfalls in the Swiss Alps. Imagine a guy with so much water helping us who don’t.

Many emailers sided with the Glendora couple. I thought the story represented the central dilemma: Should we get rid of our lawns? If so, what would that look like?

Alan Pollack, a medical doctor from Woodland Hills, had this to say in his email:

“The Glendora couple are not alone. I am noticing more homeowners are letting their lawns die these days, which is a good thing, because lawns don’t belong in our semi-arid (becoming more arid) climate.”

He went on to say dirt is not a solution. The couple should plant drought-tolerant native plants that would minimize outdoor water use.

A prescription worth following, yes?

Steve Scauzillo covers transportation and the environment for the Los Angeles News Group. He’s the current recipient of the Aldo Leopold Award for Distinguished Editorial Writing from The Wilderness Society. Follow him on Twitter @stevscaz or email him at steve.scauzillo@langnews.com